user 37518
Well-known member
john12ax7 said:
I was into RF/MW, my colleagues used to frown at everything that ran under 1 GHz. which was basically considered DC for them haha They were doing stuff at 9-24GHz.
New EE graduate looking for infomation
- Thread starter PRyHyM
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
I was into RF/MW, my colleagues used to frown at everything that ran under 1 GHz. which was basically considered DC for them haha They were doing stuff at 9-24GHz.
user 37518
Well-known member
PRyHyM said:
I don't agree, an only lab course makes you a technician, if thats what you want to be that is ok, I might be flamed for this but an EE must know Calculus, Diff Equations, Laplace, Fourier, EM theory, Control theory, plus all the theory behind electronics and electric circuits. Hands on experience is easier to learn afterwards. I know what you feel, I teach EE theory subjects at a university and many of my students want to mess with their breadboards instead of equations and paper scribbling, practice is an important part, but its not the most important thing.
In the late XIX early XX centuries, EEs didn't know much math or physics, they were more empirical, then came Charles Proteus Steinmetz who revolutionized electrical engineering as we know it today, and he complained that engineers didn't have enough math/physics foundation so they couldn't understand the basics like complex numbers and so on, so in addition to his greatest books on electrical enginering, he wrote one of the first (if not the first) mathematics for engineering books, probably because of him is the reason why modern EEs now have a great foundation on math/physics and theory.
Now, many people here are extremely great circuit designers and they know little about advanced math and so on, and that is ok (one of the greatest Analog Designers, Jim Williams, didn't have a degree but he is 1 in a billion, and he was a genious), if you are very specialized in a trade like audio that might work, but a University should teach you a wide array of topics, they must prepare you for many situations, and specially if you intend to do post-graduate work you HAVE to know theory, Universities must take into account what the market demands, and sadly analog audio is not a very demanded discipline.
The boogie man (at least one of them) for PhD students is something called qualification exams, AKA "quals" they are exams about EE covering everything from math, physics, and all that an EE must know, these exams are taken in the early semesters of a PhD, so if you didn't have a good foundation in your undergrad years you will definitely suffer.
The cutting edge of technology relies heavily on quantum theory, advanced EM theory, material science and so on, many of the designers of say Intel, Apple, etc... never touch a soldering iron, a scope or even a DMM in their daily work.
There are some really extreme exceptions in which lab experience is extremely important, for example, when I was doing my masters a colleague of mine who was finishing his PhD was an expert on a particular piece of equipment for measuring microwave power transistors, a very rare piece of equipment of which only 4 or 5 of that kind were available in the world (if you are interested here is a brief explanation of the equipment he used https://www2.ece.ohio-state.edu/~roblin/lsna/), he was offered a position at a company for that reason amongst others, but again, that is the exception not the rule.
Also if you are into instrumentation, metrology, calibration, and so on, well its obvious that you need lab experience, but that is mostly a post-grad degree not a BSc. Or if you want to be a field/test engineer, that is also important, but most of the time, the company you work for will give you some kind of training for that.
Newmarket
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
Just cutting the rest of the quoted post there for brevity.
Lots of wise words and common sense there (even if it is making me think my Laplace is a bit weak right now and knowing 'everything' is a bit of a tall order
)Now I enjoy playing around with 'two transistor fuzz' derivatives and 'transformer boxes' as much as a lot of people. But I have to take a rather more rigorous approach in the day job - basically high voltage instrumentation and process systems.
user 37518 - I think wrt Sahib's reference to your sole automotive analogy- may have been conflating with an earlier automotive reference by Squarewave. Personally I think automotive analogies are a rather good way to describe control / feedback systems to non-electronics people as most people can appreciate the idea of, say, the delay between steering wheel movement and actual change in direction leading to instability and the potential for disaster.
Meanwhile Sahib seems to be 'triggered' by the term "Control Theory" ?
And I don't see that anyone needs to apologise for anything here. Matador's posts seemed excellent to myself.
There is no single 'correct' way to design something. You can start from the 'Outside' or 'Inside' or anywhere inbetween. Let's not forget that electronic design is engineering and uses scientific principles. But it is also a creative endeavour (as indeed is pure science).
user 37518
Well-known member
Newmarket said:
I agree, I am not denying the creative and practical side, maybe analog audio is not as rigorous, but most of the modern stuff is, you don't have to do everything "by the book" but I also think that the "lets just jam..." attitude is not very good advice. Also, it depends on what you are doing regarding audio, if you are designing Class D amp chips for TI or AD and you just go with the flow and know nothing about control theory and everything else I mentioned, you'll probably wont cut it.
Personally I do not like those who only rely on SPICE to get things done, but also I do not like the ones who make everything empirically. When I was doing my master's thesis on microwave power amps, I first had to design it broadly by hand based on theory, then I went to a circuit simulator, then I had to optimize parameters with an optimizer using design goals, then I had to use an EM wave simulator because the circuit simulator is not that accurate enough at high frequencies, and it was an iterative process of going back to the drawing board and simulating, but you had to know what to correct and that is based on theory not just messing around with the parameters, after the simulation on both circuit and EM wave was correct, then I proceded to build and measure the amplifier, the built amplifier was very similar to the results predicted by the EM wave simulator.
I didn't touch a soldering iron only pencil, paper, books and a computer for the first 1 year and 8 months of my MEE (I did use it in some course work, I am talking specifically about my thesis project), it was only until I had finished designing and simulating everything that I then picked the iron and built the amplifier and measured it in the lab, that was the cherry on top, the light at the end of the tunnel of all the theoretical work I had to do previously.
And that in my opinion, is the distinction between a lab technician and an EE.
Regarding your Laplace skills, I had a professor in college during my undergrad years who was a tyrant, I cant even remember which subject he taught, all I remember is that the entire students were terriefied of him, every class there was a dead silence, he would ask random students questions, something related to EE, not even related to his class, his argument was that every EE had to know some things by heart, if you didn't answer correctly he would crucify you, humiliate you, tell you to quit engineering and even lower points from your grade.
His questions included Laplace, Fourier and Z transforms, constant values, formulae and so on. He was really an ass, I remember this one time he asked a student an extremely simple question, it was a trap, the professor said "what is the value of pi?" and the student surprised said "3.1416" and the professor went "very well, very well, you did good dont you?" and the student replied "well yes, it was very easy" and the professor replied "ohhhh you think that was easy?, ok then, for the next lecture everyone in class is going to dress in a suit, women will wear formal clothing, you are also going to wear a suit, you are going to do a Matlab program on (i cant remember what but it was very difficult) and you are going to give a presentation, then we will pretend it is your final degree examination and ask you questions, if you don't know how to answer you will fail this course, and ohhhh, if one of your student colleagues do not question you seriously for pittty or compassion, I will also lower their grades so you better do your best."., he kept his promise, and the next class everyone attended in a suit, the poor guy was scared as f**k, after almost an hour of shame the professor made a fool of the student, afterwards I believe he pittied the student and just told him to sit down, I don't know if he passed or failed.
I did learn a lesson thou... Ask me Boltzman's constant or the value of the charge of an electron
Newmarket
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
Well I think you mean "Analogue" there but I'll let it pass
Meanwhile - yeah pretty much spot on. I'll just add that whilst I advocate simulations - I am currently using LTSpice and Symetrix - the results are dependent on the accuracy if the models being used (as well as the physical implementation in terms of pcb/component layout). I'm currently simulating circuits using optocouplers in an analogue control circuit. And I know that the characterisation of those optocouplers in that scenario is likely not well modelled.
I've also observed that while I've experienced people working in different fields - eg Surface Science - express some surprise that development is/was still a thing in audio applications - when they see the specifications achieved in pro-audio they did generally go " Oh I see" when they appreciated the excellent figures achieved wrt noise/THD/jitter etc.
As for your former lecturer - seems he had 'problems' and should have been referred to 'Professional Standards" (or whatever) or dealt with informally if that wasn't a realistic option.
user 37518
Well-known member
Newmarket said:Well I think you mean "Analogue" there but I'll let it pass
Meanwhile - yeah pretty much spot on. I'll just add that whilst I advocate simulations - I am currently using LTSpice and Symetrix - the results are dependent on the accuracy if the models being used (as well as the physical implementation in terms of pcb/component layout). I'm currently simulating circuits using optocouplers in an analogue control circuit. And I know that the characterisation of those optocouplers in that scenario is likely not well modelled.
I've also observed that while I've experienced people working in different fields - eg Surface Science - express some surprise that development is/was still a thing in audio applications - when they see the specifications achieved in pro-audio they did generally go " Oh I see" when they appreciated the excellent figures achieved wrt noise/THD/jitter etc.
As for your former lecturer - seems he had 'problems' and should have been referred to 'Professional Standards" (or whatever) or dealt with informally if that wasn't a realistic option.
Analogue indeed ;D
I am pretty sure that lecturer got fired soon afterwards
sahib
Well-known member
user 37518 said:
I am hoping that you do not refer to my comments with "let's jam attitude".
A big point I have made seems to be deliberately being ignored. Control theory does not teach yu how to design an amplifier. Control theory teaches you control theory. What teaches you design an amplifier is the topological knowledge. Assuming of course that the electrical fundamentals are covered.
Firstly, to point out that how much your first sentence in the above quote contradicts the rest. It seems to me that all of your job was done on the sim.
And this is no different than what a good design engineer does. Brings the design on the sim to a level as ideal as he/she can and then builds the circuit to test the concept (prototype).
But again, when you designed your microwave amp, it was not the control theory taught you how to design it, but it was the topological knowledge. Without the topological knowledge control theory is a control theory as a broadband discipline (which is Newmarket's comment, agreeably).
Control theory helps you understand the nature of a system's behaviour using maths. In a way, it helps you understand the nature. Tells you that, say, at some point in your circuit the phase shift will catch up and cause oscillation. But it does not tell you how to design that mechanism to overcome it. That requires a topological knowldge.
Say, you are setting up a feedback network around a non-inverting opamp stage. If you do not know how to set up the network to give you, say the pole and the zero you need (using passive components) then control theory is not going you teach you that. Because you already lack the topological knowledge. You can have all the control theory you have.
If above was true, which no doubt it was, then you were, excuse my language, a bunch of pussies. That guys sounds like a total assh*le and I would have f**** leathered him in the class that he would turn up the next lecture with an apology letter wearing a mini skirt.
Your Boltzman's constant reminded me something that in one of my open university maths books there was this Japanese engineer who recited the pi to something like 50,000 decimal point.
Let me tell you a joke. I hope puts a bit of laughter on your faces.
Sultan asks his aids to organise an entertainment for him, so the aids bring the best talents in the country they can find. So, one after another they do their tricks and Sultan orders his aids to give them a golden lira.
Finally, there comes this guy. Sultan asks what this guy's talent is. And one of his aids, whispers quietly " his excellency, this man can throw a bit of thread from a hundred yards and puts it through the eye of a needle ".
Sultan goes, yeah, let's see it.
Right enough, the guy throws a bit of thread from a hundred yards and boom! straight through the eye of the needle.
Sultan goes, wow, bravo. Turns to his aid and orders "give this guy a hundred golden lira and a hundred lashes".
The aid is stunned, and dares to asks "his excellency I get the hundred golden lira but why the lashes?
The sultan goes, golden liras are for his talent, lashes are for wasting his talent on f**** stupid thing like this.
As long as you do not recite the Boltzman's constant to the same you are off the hook for the lashes. But no lashes no golden liras either ;D.
user 37518
Well-known member
sahib said:
I wasn't, its more about the attitude of the self proclaimed 'circuit benders' if that makes any sense.
Indeed most of the job was made in the Sim, but like I explained it wasn't about relegating the sim the responsability of my ignorance or lack of concern for theory, it was an iterative process about designing based on theory, simulating, optimizing, and re-designing always with the theory in mind. Regarding control theory, it doesn't even apply to MW amplifiers, at least not in its traditional form, I explained in one of my previous posts, its based on S parameters. Topological understanding is important, but in this case EM theory, distributed parameters, and MW techniques are the things that really count, not only topological knowledge.
Easier said than done, I ommited the fact that I always knew the answer to the questions he asked me, we kinda ended up becoming friends in a weird way, he will talk to me after class, he was less of a tyrant after class but still a very weird individual, however, that back fired, everytime a student didn't know the answer he told me to answer the question, which I did, perhaps I was lucky.
Your 'If it was me I would've teach him a lesson' argument reminded me of this family guy scene:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csi0_W1pB9w
BTW, long ago I read an article which described a learning experiment, certain group of students were taught by using humiliation, fear and an iron fist, the other group was exactly the opposite if someone made a mistake they would encourage him/her, the teacher was extremely kind and so on. The group that was humiliated performed much better after a test. The conclussion was that the survival instinct of human beings makes them learn and remember more things from dangerous situations that from good/nice situations. Which makes sense, thats why all kids today are so f**ked up and get easily offended, because of their 'Everyone gets a trophy for participation' and 'There are no wrong answers' upbringing. Also makes sense why the military are trained the 'tough' way.
The iron fist approach was the de-facto approach for many engineering/science universities, specially in the old days, I am not sure that the modern friendly 'kumbaya' universities are a better way to educate, it seems like the Asian education system has retained the old approach. When the bridge collapses or the plane crashes due to bad design, no one is going to pat you on the back and tell you it wasn't your fault.
I've always liked to memorize things, someone once told me 'Learning is remembering' and it stuck, thats different from 'Learning is only remembering', I don't try to memorize absolutely everything but if I use something continuously I tend to memorize it. This has been a complaint I've had towards my students, kids no longer want to commit anything to memory, they rely solely on their phones and Google, or worse, Siri.
sahib
Well-known member
As I mentioned before I am 60 and I started my higher education journey five years ago, after spending a life time in practical design and manufacture. One year open university maths and four years of full time EEE course. I am having my last exam on Friday in wireless communications. Then I have to do my presentation for my project/dissertation. Then freedom.
I would not like to sound like one of those who thinks he knows better, and tells everybody how things should be done, but I think exam is an outdated concept. (I have also heard that from a few high calibre academics.) As I mentioned before we had a guy in year three who did not know the difference between AC and DC. But passed the exam. One may say that is an exception, but not really. So, clearly exams are not a reliable (or fair) metrics to measure one's learning or success.
I also do not believe that teaching by humiliation produces better results. There are ways to get student engaged and that does not require trophy by only participating either.
In this modern day with the amount of material available on the internet the universities should re-evaluate their role. There is no under graduate theory (again in EEE) they teach that can not be learned on the internet. In fact, any of my classmates that I am in contact with have always been on the internet to supplement their learning after lectures. And they still have not acquired the electrical fundamentals.
Four years of study, one can still not design a sh*t, but thanks god we did all that laplace and fourier and can write beautiful equations even though we do not know what the hell they mean.
So, clearly something wrong here.
Electronics, as a subject is not what it used to be, say when I started learning in mid '70s. It is vastly wider. So, instead of trying to cram bits of everything, which results in producing jack of all trades and master of none, focus on the things that matter.
Now, you made a point in differentiating between an EE and a lab technician. I argue that most of what is coming out of the universities are actually not engineers but glorified computer operators. If one is going to learn how to design in the industry, what is the role of a university education, as one can also learn the theory in the industry (or internet). So, a good re-thinking is way overdue I think.
What made you go into teaching?
I would not like to sound like one of those who thinks he knows better, and tells everybody how things should be done, but I think exam is an outdated concept. (I have also heard that from a few high calibre academics.) As I mentioned before we had a guy in year three who did not know the difference between AC and DC. But passed the exam. One may say that is an exception, but not really. So, clearly exams are not a reliable (or fair) metrics to measure one's learning or success.
I also do not believe that teaching by humiliation produces better results. There are ways to get student engaged and that does not require trophy by only participating either.
In this modern day with the amount of material available on the internet the universities should re-evaluate their role. There is no under graduate theory (again in EEE) they teach that can not be learned on the internet. In fact, any of my classmates that I am in contact with have always been on the internet to supplement their learning after lectures. And they still have not acquired the electrical fundamentals.
Four years of study, one can still not design a sh*t, but thanks god we did all that laplace and fourier and can write beautiful equations even though we do not know what the hell they mean.
So, clearly something wrong here.
Electronics, as a subject is not what it used to be, say when I started learning in mid '70s. It is vastly wider. So, instead of trying to cram bits of everything, which results in producing jack of all trades and master of none, focus on the things that matter.
Now, you made a point in differentiating between an EE and a lab technician. I argue that most of what is coming out of the universities are actually not engineers but glorified computer operators. If one is going to learn how to design in the industry, what is the role of a university education, as one can also learn the theory in the industry (or internet). So, a good re-thinking is way overdue I think.
What made you go into teaching?
user 37518
Well-known member
sahib said:As I mentioned before I am 60 and I started my higher education journey five years ago, after spending a life time in practical design and manufacture. One year open university maths and four years of full time EEE course. I am having my last exam on Friday in wireless communications. Then I have to do my presentation for my project/dissertation. Then freedom.
I would not like to sound like one of those who thinks knows better, and tells everybody how things should be, but I think exam is an outdated concept. (I have also heard that from a few high calibre academics.) As I mentioned before we had a guy in year three who did not know the difference between AC and DC. But passed the exam. One may say that is an exception, but not really. So, clearly exams are not a reliable (or fair) metrics to measure one's learning or success.
I also do not believe that teaching by humiliation produces better results. There are ways to get student engaged and that does not require trophy by only participating either.
In this modern day with the amount of material available on the internet the universities should re-evaluate their role. There is no under graduate theory (again in EEE) they teach that can not be learned on the internet. In fact, any of my classmates that I am in contact with have always been on the internet to supplement their learning after lectures. And they still have not acquired the electrical fundamentals.
Four years of study, one can still not design a sh*t, but thanks god we did all that laplace and fourier and can write beautiful equations even though we do not know what the hell they mean.
So, clearly something wrong here.
Electronics, as a subject is not what it used to be, say when I started learning in mid '70s. It is vastly wider. So, instead of trying to cram bits of everything, which results in producing jack of all trades and master of none, focus on the things that matters.
Now, you made a point in differentiating between an EE and a lab technician. I argue that you do not even realise that, what is coming out of the universities are actually not engineers but glorified technicians. If one is going to learn how to design in the industry, what is the role of a university education, as one can also learn the theory in the industry (or internet). So, a good re-think is way overdue I think.
What made you go into teaching?
Sahib, I realize that things are not perfect, I do believe that exams or tests are the correct way to evaluate in most cases, however, the problem is the approach they give to tests, if the tests are just about memorizing what the teacher said and then writting it on paper so it proves that you remember it then its worthless... An engineering test should be a problem in which you apply your knowledge, problems should not be variations of what you already learned during lectures, they should be related to what you learned but different by making you think instead of mere repetition or application of an algorithm.
I don't think humiliation is the way to go either, but it proves that the opposite is worse, namely being extremely agreeable, permissive and kind.
Engineers are NOT glorified technicians, a technician wont go beyond, he may become a better technician or more specialized but he will remain a technician. What you are failing to see is that a BS does not mean you are suddenly ready for everything, that is why there are Master and PhD degrees. A Bs should give you the foundations of the discipline you selected, it should give you a broad spectrum, that is why EEs also need to know mechanics, thermodynamics, etc... you are studying an engineering degree which is oriented to a certain area but that doesn't make you a specialist in that area. An engineer with Bs can then go into different fields like administration by studying an MA, or into physics, math, finance and so on, a technician can't.
To give you an example, I am about to study an online master's degree in catholic theology, and I am an EE!, they require that you have an undergrad degree, as an EE I can apply to that degree, as a technician I cant.
Its very different to how things were before, decades ago, electronics wasn't such a vast field, so if you studied a Bs in EE you didn't have to cram in so many different subjects in a 4 year program, if the only thing available back then was vacuum tubes and analog, then you could study many subjects on analog electronics, and so on, now you have power electronics, analog electronics, digital electronics, signal processing, communications, power systems, automation, software, computer networks, control, etc.. etc.. so universities have to incorporate all of that in a 4 year program, that obviously means that you wont be that specialized after you finish. But that is the point, nowadays a Bs is meant to be the foundation, then you can become an expert in a certain field by going through a master or phd degree.... a Bs in EE today is much different than an Bs. in EE 50 years ago.
I do agree that most BsEEs fresh out of college get a glorified technician job, for the same reasons I explained above.
You can learn most of a Bs education online, but a masters and a PhD are a completely different thing, to begin with there is the issue of the equipment used, you might make it with a cheap scope and a DMM in your undergrad years, but in a master or phd you will probably need specialized labs with millions of dollars worth of equipment, also, what you learn under an advisor or researcher from a specific topic is not available on Khan academy. There is also the issue that you need access and read a lot of what is called "the state of the art" which are basically peer reviewed research papers on a specific subject, and know what exactly is being done today in terms of your research field, specially if you are doing a PhD, so you need access to the most relevant journals, most universities have free access to these journals, otherwise you would have to pay a lot for memberships. And then of course its the matter of accreditation, if you want a masters or PhD you need that little paper which says that you are a Bs in EE.
Also, most design jobs in big name companies require at least a masters preferably a PhD.
You can become a Bs. and go into the industry and learn from a mentor from a specific field, that is also very similar to the academic process I described.
Why did I go into education? several reasons, I am an academic, I like the academic side of engineering, I believe I like more the process of studying, reading and learning rather than making or building stuff if that makes any sense, I enjoy making curcuits but I am more an armchair engineer if you like.... I do not enjoy that much working in a traditional office/factory/building, etc.... Also, as you said, much of the theory you learn in a Bs is not used practically in most everyday jobs, and I love that theory, so teaching gives me the opportunity to use that theory and learn more about it by teaching. I was offered a teaching job in 2013 teaching electronics in an audio school, and I've been doing it ever since, in 2016 after I finished my masters I was offered another job teaching analog electronics at a major university and I have also been teaching there since.
sahib
Well-known member
Something went wrong on the forum while I was typing. For some reason it kept saying that the forum was under maintenance.
So, I made some minor changes to my post but I can see that you have got the first version.
I actually meant "glorified computer operators". But then again it is in my particular experience and certainly does not mean it is the case everywhere. I am sure MIT is not MIT for nothing.
I understand what you are saying about masters and PhD. My views are limited to undergraduate. So, I feel my points still have not been addressed. But we obviously have different views. So, I'll stop here.
But peace to everybody.
So, I made some minor changes to my post but I can see that you have got the first version.
I actually meant "glorified computer operators". But then again it is in my particular experience and certainly does not mean it is the case everywhere. I am sure MIT is not MIT for nothing.
I understand what you are saying about masters and PhD. My views are limited to undergraduate. So, I feel my points still have not been addressed. But we obviously have different views. So, I'll stop here.
But peace to everybody.
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
I'm not sure that's the case. It certainly wasn't when I graduated (albeit 25 years ago now). I applied for several design jobs and was given offers for most of them. More than one of those employers stated that they preferred Engineers with a first degree over PhDs - generally, not always. PhDs are sometimes seen as too academic and too specialised. The employer would rather know that you have a good general grounding and are capable of learning, and not too set in your own ways, such that you can learn how they do things at that company and come up to speed and fit in more smoothly.user 37518 said:
PhD to Bachelor/Master ratio at the companies I worked at was between 5% and 10% - the latter in the smallest company.
user 37518
Well-known member
Matt Nolan said:
During my Master's all the high paying or high level jobs in RF design that I saw required a masters or PhD, in the US. That was back in 2016, the entry level jobs only required a BSc.
But it is true, sometimes its better to say that you don't have a PhD. I've heard people being rejected at interviews for over qualification.
Here in Mexico, Wal-Mart won't give you a job if they find out you have a college degree, you need a high school certificate, but no college degree, a friend of my mom who used to be a nun applied and she was rejected because she had a college degree ;D
john12ax7
Well-known member
A PhD is generally required in academia and some industry jobs. But in general a masters degree is the sweet spot for engineering in terms of cost / benefit.
user 37518
Well-known member
john12ax7 said:
Agreed
My experience is probably not typical. I actually managed an engineering group despite not having a degree myself. I did not perceive any correlation between years of education and engineering design chops.
Most (all?) of my engineers had at least a BS which insured a common vocabulary that allowed me to communicate instructions and tasks to them.
JR
Most (all?) of my engineers had at least a BS which insured a common vocabulary that allowed me to communicate instructions and tasks to them.
JR
jacomart
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
However, maybe, you already had many years of experience...
Cheers
JM
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
This might be a controversial pair of statements I am about to make...user 37518 said:
It may be that a European degree and a North American degree do not carry the same weight
It may be that a 2016 degree and a 1996 degree do not carry the same weight
(runs for cover...)
Edit to add: I did a Masters in the UK. That was recommended at the time as the UK Bachelors was not seen as carrying the same weight as the European "equivalent"
user 37518
Well-known member
Who knows, I mean I guess that it depends on the demands, a 1996 degree would probably not cover FPGAs aswell as newer technollogies, so a 1996 degree might not be as useful today in that regard, however it may be true what you say
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
Yeah, supply and demand and relevance change all the time. To make myself a little more clear, I meant to compare a 1996 degree with 1996 job opportunities versus a 2016 degree with 2016 job opportunities. Supply, demand and content are all different. It's complicated, for sure and my comments were half serious and half joking, so I hope no offence was taken.
